In the 1990s I helped Southwark council prepare its housing strategy. Reading the Southwark housing commission report published last week, I was struck by how little the issues had changed.

Most of the commission's recommendations are not controversial, nor are they new. Southwark needs to improve its core housing management service, in particular repairs and maintenance, and become more responsive to its tenants and leaseholders. The scale of investment required is huge: 18,000 of the council's 39,000 homes do not meet decent homes standard and, without major refurbishment, many will soon reach the end of their useful life – the legacy of poor building standards and maintenance.

There is though a divergence of opinion about whether Southwark should divest itself of much of its stock. The commission looked at three future options: stock remaining at 39,000; being reduced to 30,000; or being reduced to 20,000. The report's weakest point is its consideration of what would happen if the stock is nearly halved. Who would buy it? What would happen to the tenants? And would the stock remain available to meet housing need?

Hannah Fearn's blogpost last week came down on the side of a divestment strategy that would enable investment through local partners and argued that this would be better than "struggling on". However tenants in Southwark have consistently said they want to stay with the council as their landlord and that should be respected. Experience elsewhere tells us that stock transfer business plans almost inevitably involve a major loss of social rented housing – the most precious resource in housing right now.

My reason for optimism is that housing revenue account reform is a potential game-changer in places like Southwark. The council now has choices and much more power over the destiny of its housing stock. It has control of its own rental income and a sizeable borrowing capacity. It has a real opportunity to prepare a genuine (rather than a hopeful) 30-year strategy for its stock and has full responsibility for its implementation. The commission shows that a judicious mix – of redevelopment in the worst cases, physical improvement in many others, and using borrowing capacity to build new homes to replace those lost through right to buy and demolition, together with a major drive to improve the quality and responsiveness of housing management services – would be viable and sustainable. Within a pragmatic mix there may be examples where a small scale stock transfer is justified.

Social rented homes are becoming so scarce that it is surely right that council leader Peter John has already ruled out drastic reductions in the stock and reiterated the borough's commitment to building 1,000 new council homes by 2020. The commission is right to say that keeping the stock will require "a step change in the quality of strategic and project management" and Southwark would probably admit the charge that it has a "chequered history" on council housing.

But one thing is certain: if selling off half of Southwark's stock is the answer, somebody's been asking the wrong question.